June 29, 2007

1. re Gore: "Gore had canceled all his scheduled events in the next six months," according to the Taipei Times.

2. re Fred Thompson: "The Fred Thompson campaign recently set up an event for 60 of Congress's most solid conservatives. Many of them were hoping to be able to endorse Thompson. Unfortunately, Thompson did not impress the Congressmen. He did not appear to be ready for a tough Presidential campaign. One of his aides explained that Thompson was 'rusty,' which, as one Congressman told me, did not inspire much confidence in this YouTube era. Some of those who attended are now looking at Mitt Romney as the most viable conservative in the race."

"Rusty." Great word. What does it connote? Lazy/dumb? Or just not in the mood? Or is John Hinderaker trying to tip us toward Romney? This business about "confidence in this YouTube era" seems to say: Don't worry about slick. We need slick. Slick is good.

As for Gore, what do you make of that? Someone check to see if he's on a diet. If so, he's running. And I say, welcome! Gore is a worthy entrant in the race.

UPDATE: Now, Power Line is saying that the Gore story from Taiwan is a fake. The link goes here:

I just contacted Al Gore's office and was told the following about the article.

It is completely and utterly false.

1. He never accepted an event in Taiwan 2. We have loads of events on the schedule in the next six months

I don?t know how to spell bubkus but there?s no credibility to this whatsoever.

Hmmm... so is that the end of it, or is there something suspicious about the denial? "Completely and utterly" is awfully strong. I was thinking maybe "never accepted" left some room for a tentative plan that was then abandoned, and maybe "loads of events on the schedule" means... oh, I give up!

I think Gore is a possible. He clearly has a high capability for self-delusion. I think he may be able to convince himself that regardless of the polls, that neither Obama or Hillary are electable because of their high negatives and the "ballot box regret" syndrome involving minority candidates getting fewer votes than exit polls would suggest were cast.

As for Thompson, I gave money to McCain in 2000 and would have liked to have supported him this time, but not after immigration. The rest look either too wishy-washy or have too much baggage. I hope Thompson runs and I could support him with what I've seen thus far.

Thompson does not do extemporaneous well. I might not care so much, except that listening to Bush for the past 6+ years has amplified my cringe response.

Also perhaps worth noting is that Thompson comes across as one of those slooooooow-talking Southern types. That should not be construed as indicating "dumb." He probably has a considerably higher IQ and vastly more integrity than the Goracle.

As for Romney, he is probably the brightest, most capable and accomplished of all the candidates, Rep or Dem. That likely means he is unelectable.

I'm not sure what you are talking about Drill sgt., but I've always believed that Gore was at going to at least have to explore the possibility of running for President. He's obviously not the best political campaigner, but this is the perfect season for him. His name ID is off the charts, he probably has better personal poll numbers than anyone this side of maybe Obama and maybe Rudy, and this is shaping up to be a perfect storm for Democrats. He's never going to win over some of the loons here who think that Democrat="branch of Al Queda" but I he would win in a landslide over any of the current Republican field. Also he could make some kick-ass slogans like "Don't make the same mistake twice. Vote for Gore".

He has been saying some very outrageous things especially in Europe. Plus there was a long period of time when he wore that crazy beard. All those speeches have been saved by people who would run against him,

Put all that together in a series of commercials and Gore could be made to appear insane.

The right-wing blogosphere, especially Hugh Hewitt, is constantly selling Romney. They do it cleverly. They never criticize Guiliani. They praise him when he does well in debates. But then they say, "but the real winner was Romney." The fact that he has gone from being on Guiliani's left on social issues to his right doesn't seem to bother them.

To me, Romney is Hillary's dream opponent. She will devour him like a bowl of carrot sticks.

I'm not sure who is weirder between Hillary and Romney. It could be a very disturbing campaign. The Romney dog story now making the rounds is literally nauseating. For a family trip, he locked up his dog in a crate, and strapped him to the roof of the car. Suddenly, someone in the family notices that the dog's s--t is dribbling down the rear window. Romney pulls over to a gas station, hoses down the car and keeps going.

I'm hardly a PETA type, but this is horrific.

Thompson and Gore are kept afloat by their respective parties' sense of unease going into a general election with any of the candidates they've got. Is Hillary too divisive? Is Obama experienced enough? Is Guiliani too much of a rock star? Is Romney too much of a robot? The problem is, both Gore and Thompson have their own odd personalities to deal with. I like where Gore stands, but I wonder if he is any better at campaigning than he was in 2000. Thompson just seems lazy, like he was running for president in 1896 from a front porch.

My opinion is the two best candidates the Reps have are Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. The only rap I have on them is they both seem too nice. I'd like a little Rudy "screw you!!" contentiousness from the two. They are auditioning for President, not who gets to play "Mr. Cleaver" in "Leave it to Beaver".

Thompson might be a viable candidate, but I'd like to see his "lazy, rusty" ass on the campaign trail to see if it is true or not. In the meantime, it's like the 70s when the best music gig ever will be when the Beatles eventually reunite or when "Teddy Kennedy finally deigns to accept the Presidency that is his by birthright" in 1976.

Waiting for the imagined "great man" to come on white horse...

Jake makes an excellent point about Gore: He has been saying some very outrageous things especially in Europe.

Gore is like a movie star that thinks he can go to Japan and make millions hawking lame infomercial wares and no one in the USA will be the wiser.Jake is right - the crap that Al Gore is on film sayng in Europe about America being evil, cause of the icecaps melting, "serial violator of 'established human rights' protocols demanded by NGOs, greatest purveyor of murder through gun sales...goes beyond Lefty...to crazy. Oppo research has clips of him in his bearded stage ranting against Bush and America so hard in Switzerland and Germany his handlers have to come on stage at a break to help calm him down...

One of the many nice things about the military in this country is their respect for rule of law, the constitution and the respect of the office if not the man. While I am sure a great many of the people in the military would not like a president Gore, they would serve under him, because thats the way the system works. Any talk about a coup is idiotic.

Former Vice President Al Gore told a mainly Saudi audience on Sunday that the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment.

Gore said Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions. The former vice president said the Bush administration was playing into al-Qaida's hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications.

"The thoughtless way in which visas are now handled, that is a mistake," Gore said during the Jiddah Economic Forum. "The worst thing we can possibly do is to cut off the channels of friendship and mutual understanding between Saudi Arabia and the United States."

as to fen's comment: "Gore tossed out absentee military ballots on hyper-technicalities during his Sore-Loserman meltdown."

here's the only thing i can find and it says nada about gore having anything to do with it...as if he could:

By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Thousands of votes from U.S. troops overseas could go uncounted again in November without emergency legislation extending deadlines for the ballots, a Chicago election official warned President Bush (news - web sites) in a letter Tuesday.

Nearly 30 percent of military voters who requested ballots in 2000 didn't get them in time to vote.

Theresa M. Petrone, a Democratic member of Chicago's three-person Board of Election Commissioners, told Bush the problem could be solved if he proposed emergency legislation giving election officials up to 14 days after Election Day to collect and count ballots.

(And isn't that one of the three big tropes that come out about all Republican candidates: they're either stupid or cunning, and lazy?)

How about we have a President who doesn't have the fire in the belly thing going? People with fires in their bellies are always on about something or other, always feeling like they have to DO something. That's how we ended up with a bunch of parasitic government bureaucracies in the first place!

What Jeff said. Lots of green suiters won't forget Gore's attempt to reject absentee ballots, but are willing to put their lives on the line daily for the Constitution and the Commander and Chief, regardless of what a slimeball he may be.

Why would it be up to Bush to propose emergency legislation? The elections are under the jurisdictions of the state and local boards, not the feds unless it becomes too egregious in what the locals are pulling.

dick,because there are laws governing the date the ballots have to be "postmarked" by. it's not when they are received, it's when they were actually mailed. if bush felt there was a problem, he could have requested a time allowance.

*again, whether you think bush should be involved or not, i've yet to see an objective link to a story or report saying gore had something to with any of it.

Issues surrounding the military vote quickly became a political football as the Democrats sought to disqualify as many overseas ballots as possible and Republicans sought the reverse. Some observers characterized the votes of hundreds of servicemen and women as "flawed,"6 whereas others decried the disenfranchisement of countless patriotic citizens through no fault of their own.7 A Democratic operative wrote a memorandum detailing the grounds on which to disqualify overseas ballots causing howls of protests that led Senator Lieberman, the Democratic vice presidential candidate, to effectively disavow the strategy.8 Nevertheless, the discrepancy of military overseas votes accepted by Republican-dominated counties and those rejected by Democrat-dominated counties is striking. According to a commentary in the Wall Street Journal,

A total of 356 overseas military ballots were disallowed due to postmark challenges and another 157 because there was no independent record of requests for state absentee ballots. Combined with other causes, a total of 788 military absentee ballots were rejected. In Bush counties, 29 percent of overseas ballots were disallowed, but the figure was 60 percent in Gore counties; in pliant Broward, the Gore kill rate was 77 percent.9

Lucky, the references are probably to the infamous "Herron Memo" of November, 2000. As even a half-wit can google "gore challenge military ballots" and come up with a few thousand hits, I'm surprised you had to ask. Then again, it would not surprise me to find out you are just lazy.

FWIW, here is one scholarly article on the subject, from the Election Law Journal:

As it is available only to subscribers, I haven't read it myself, but have little doubt it will please most of those posting comments here, because the facts are rarely as simple as what people tend to think they are.

Given that I am not particularly interested in doing your homework for you, or for others advocating a military coup, I suggest that anyone who really wants to know what is said in the article google the authors' names and see what turns up.

mgo - I bet you are right. I haven't found Hinderaker and Co. very reliable when reporting on those of whom they disapprove. While they live up to my low impression of the legal profession, they rarely exceed it. That sitting members of the GOP caucus are not enthused by anyone who doesn't play by their rules comes as no great surprise, either, given their taste for perks, earmarks, and special interest funds.

Disenfranchising the military was common knowledge to anyone who was paying attention. Wankers who always demand links as a challenge are like that smarmy lawyer character Martin Short played on SNL. They should rebut the prima facie case.

Fen, I mostly clown around at Althouse, but I’m kind of serious, here.

I’m a big admirer of yours, in particular, and I guess you could say I’m a "right wing" sympathizer, in general.

That’s why I respectfully implore you to please retract or clarify your 1:19 pm and 1:48 pm comments which imply your sincere belief that the United States Armed Forces would intervene with force to negate a lawful presidential election because its members resent the winner.

I don’t think you really meant what you said because what you said was, in substance, as much an insult as anything John Kerry ever said in public.

And what you said is not grounded in fact. "Gore" never "tossed" anything. Neither he nor "the Democrats" have such power. If absentee ballots were stricken, it was by process of law. Any petition that was filed, successful or not, was lawful.

We all know that there will be no coup. The U.S. military fights for the American system of government and for the American people.

while I support your comments WRT Fen's statement, the section I provided up above clearly reflects in 2 specific examples that there was a concerted effort on the part of the Dem's to drive down Military vote counts on the presumption that they would favor Bush.

1. The Herron Memo (yeah, I know Gore didn't have his fingerprinrs on it, but it was his campaign that sent the memo throughout the state)2. the comparison of rejection rates of ballots in counties that Bush carried (e.g. 29%) (which seems high already to me) and those in counties that Gore Carried (60-79% rejections).

what was done by Democratic recount officials may have been legal, but it wasn't just and it sure wasn't fair to those soldiers and sailors.

We remember, it cost Kerry votes and will cost Dems votes into the future.

Every time the Dem's talk about theoretical GOP Vote Suppression because of something like the Georgia law requiring an ID, remember real vote suppression in 2000.

He's obviously not the best political campaigner, but this is the perfect season for him.

The perfect season for him was 2000. Seriously, what more could a candidate have asked for -- he had universal name recognition then too, he was the VP of an extremely popular president, the country faced no obvious problems that could be pinned on him or his boss, he was rolling in money... and he still lost.

Politically speaking the guy's a turkey. He already had the best shot of any candidate since GHWB in '88 and blew it. The Democrats would have to be nuts to nominate him again.

Bissage - Fen, I mostly clown around at Althouse, but I’m kind of serious, here.

I’m a big admirer of yours, in particular, and I guess you could say I’m a "right wing" sympathizer, in general.

That’s why I respectfully implore you to please retract or clarify your 1:19 pm and 1:48 pm comments which imply your sincere belief that the United States Armed Forces would intervene with force to negate a lawful presidential election because its members resent the winner.

I don’t think you really meant what you said because what you said was, in substance, as much an insult as anything John Kerry ever said in public.

And what you said is not grounded in fact. "Gore" never "tossed" anything. Neither he nor "the Democrats" have such power. If absentee ballots were stricken, it was by process of law. Any petition that was filed, successful or not, was lawful.

We all know that there will be no coup. The U.S. military fights for the American system of government and for the American people.

The United States is not some kind of weird, affluent Turkey.

Please, do the right thing and retract or clarify what you said.

Thank you.

Let's put it this way, Bissage. The Founders often, Jefferson in particular...and in commentary in the Federalist Papers and on the French Revolution said the people may very well one day reject the government of the USA as not working well for them and have another Revolution.

They of course envisioned an armed yeomanary arising off farms forming armed militias (with the firearms liberals now claim is only the right of armed agents of the Ruler in power). We had minor slave and Indian rebellions after that, then the Civil War, then a period of instense Labor Strikes.

Updated to the times, there are circumstances where the USA's military could join the practice of other modern nations where military witnessing a breakdown in rule have launched revolution, coups, or played political broker.

If the Ruling Elites of America fail to heed the will of the people in significant matters, the military could well intervene, and legitimately if The People believe the 3 Branches have failed to protect and defend and deliver on the liberties and justice the People expect: - such as:

1. Telling us no matter what we wish that both Party's fatcats are determined to thrust Open Borders, Amnesty, Free Trade, Globalization of labor to the lowest bidder down the People's throats and it doesn't matter who you vote for, decisions are made on K-Street.

2. A complete breakdown in law&order - such as the day when we see judges handcuff national secirity so much that we see terrorists surrounded by cheering lawyers going free after a major attack.

3. A sense that the Constitution has become archaic, unfixable by Amendment because everything is stopped in careful gridlock strategy - and in grave need of repair and modernization - and a coup is the easiest way of fixing a crisis...(France and the UK fixed gridlock that way).

4. Right now, both the Congress and the Presidency are at record lows. People hate and despise many state and municipal governments as both welfare state nannies and corrupted by the wealthy.The failure of Katrina was of the parasitic, dependent on government for everything black underclass, incompetent municipal, incompetent state, and incompetent federal leaders and bureaucracies. The police ran...The only things that "worked" were the Coast Guard, National Guard, private charities (mostly religious ones), and neighborhood associations of middle class whites, hispanics, blacks that brought out their guns for protection and began cleaning up and restoring things.If we see our government continuing to be incompetent, still corrupt, still unable to fix anything no matter what party is in charge...and a pack of feckless judges in black bathrobes can't fix anything.....Why not the military??? - is what lots of people are asking.

5. Long-term social problems rising to crisis because they haven't been fixed and have been ducked for decades may heighten the appeal for the military to step in, recapture the purpose of the Constitution, and order things properly - then sit down with civilians and figure out why things failed...

a. The financial crisis of 800 billion trade deficits.b. When the next wave of the ultrarich owners "outsourcing" labor hits upper middleclass professions not just in "computer and software services" but ALL middle class jobs but government work and law...c. When the crunch comes that FICA must be doubled to start paying for the 42 trillion in unfunded medicare and social security costs.d. When Americans wake up and realize we have the greatest inequality of income distribution outside Muslim and African nations. Already we have 50% of the population that owns less than 10% of America's wealth not paying income taxes and thus wanting more government with no concern of cost when they vote because they don't pay..(they think). 36% of America's wealth is owned by the richest 1%.The pressure is on the shrinking middle class, which, at the low end, the end being "outsourced" and China-traded out of industry and hobs - is where most our military comes from.

History shows massive, rising income and wealth inequalities trigger social violence, revolution. Sooner or later.

e. Diverse, multiculti America could become America at war with itself if separatism, desire to have different languages accepted by region, one group launches widepread religious war...etc. The military may have to step in and end it...

I don’t see either of them really getting in the race. As others have pointed out, Gore’s best shot (nearly a perfect storm if there was one) was 2000 and he still managed to lose because he couldn’t carry either his home State or the home State of the popular Democrat incumbent president he served under. His post 9/11 meltdown, disenfranchisement of military ballots in 2000, and anti-American rhetoric overseas are all going to come into play. He should probably stick with flying around the country in his CO2-spewing jet when he’s not in his energy-draining home of Edwards proportions figuring out ways to lecture working people about why they need to pay higher energy costs because of their destructive lifestyles.

As far as Thompson goes, we should know for sure in about a week when he’s supposed to announce his intentions. My though is though that the other campaigns have been up and running for a while and the other candidates have been debating the issues. I’m a bit skeptical of the poll numbers claiming a large chunk of the GOP base wants Thompson in the race because it seems to represent more of a dissatisfaction with the way things are going in Washington now (particularly the immigration bill) than a dissatisfaction with any of the contenders (except for McCain who is inexorably linked to an unpopular immigration reform bill) or any enthusiasm for what Thompson actually stands for or brings to the table. It would be different if Thompson had taken a bold stance or was associated with a position that none of the other candidates have taken. That’s the sort of thing that people will rally around and fight for. But “I’m not the other candidates” might be the sort of thing people respond favorably to on a generic poll when they’re in a dissatisfied mood but as far as actually supporting in a campaign. Not so much.

Sarge, you know I respect and like you. And I have no quarrel with you regarding the distastefulness of ballot challenges. I have first hand knowledge of the process. I hate it, but I do my job. You don’t have to know what I do for a living. Just trust me on this.

Furthermore, I do not doubt that there was a “concerted effort on the part of the Dem's to drive down Military vote counts . . .” Personally, I am all in favor of each and every military man and woman voting against any candidate they think has, or might, attempt to do such a thing. That’s the way the game of politics is played. Anyone qualified can vote for good reason, bad reason, or no reason. It’s the law.

But that’s not at all the same as saying a retired military officer, such as Fen (having vastly greater familiarity with the culture of the armed forces than a civilian, such as myself) is respectful of the men and women of the United States military when he insists that the lawful election of Al Gore to the Presidency would likely result in a coup d'état. Such a representation is abhorrent.

My opinion is the two best candidates the Reps have are Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. The only rap I have on them is they both seem too nice. I'd like a little Rudy "screw you!!" contentiousness from the two. They are auditioning for President, not who gets to play "Mr. Cleaver" in "Leave it to Beaver".

I do like Romney but Huckabee (along with Brownback) seems too much like a third term of the Bush administration. Talking about “compassion” from government and more spending on social programs while pretty much just appealing to that segment of the base who thinks that the most important job of the POTUS is to talk about a “culture of life.”

I’ve warmed a bit more towards Giuliani but he hasn’t touched on what I think are the two biggest domestic challenges – fixing federal entitlement programs (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) and free market reforms in health care. Bush pretty much screwed up the former by pushing for Medicare Part D (which Giuliani supported and Romney and McCain both opposed) rather than personal retirement accounts for Social Security and the Democrats are still moving backwards with their proposal get still more people hooked on a government program while making health care even costlier for the rest of us.

As far as the War goes, with the exception of Ron Paul, while its practically impossible to predict what the Middle East will be like in about 18 months when a new president takes office it’s unlikely that any of them are going to cut and run before the job is done and they’ve all rightfully disavowed the Democrats’ efforts at trying to set a deadline so that our enemies know exactly how long they have to hold until.

I agree with Bissage’s posts at 6:57pm and 7:12pm. Talks of a coup are as nutty as the talks about trying to secede from the Union which happened after both Clinton and Bush 43 were (re)elected. That kind of garbage is strictly fever swamp stuff.

I suspect Thompson is sitting on the sidelines with his finger in the wind waiting to see if Giulliani or Romney self-destructs.

I personally don't like the guy. His fake southern charm grates at me (yes, I do believe it's largely affected.) The few times I've seen speak on TV, he's done VERY poorly. Besides, the man clearly has no cajones else he would have already declared.

What on earth are you talking about with getting ballots tossed. The only ones I know that the republicans wanted to get tossed were the ones with hanging chads or just marks where the people voting did not finish perforating the ballot. How can you be sure whether the voters wanted to finish the voting at all.

The conventional wisdom from last year on any potential Gore run was, "Watch the waist." Gore has ballooned, and it was thought he would shed the excess pounds in advance of entering the campaign.

It doesn't look to me as if he has been losing weight. I say he's happy where he is: rich, famous, and feted.

The big question about Thompson has always been the fire in the belly part. Does he really have the stomach for a long campaign, including the requirement to spend long hours raising money?

His lack of experience - being roughly equal to Hillary and Obama's, and only somewhat more extensive than Edwards' - is another question, because he would lose the "experience" argument that Giuliani, Romney, and possibly McCain could win against any likely Democratic nominee.

he would lose the "experience" argument that Giuliani, Romney, and possibly McCain could win against any likely Democratic nominee.

There isn't much evidence that voters care about experience. *I* do, but I'm not normal in that respect. A majority of the post-WW2 elections have, arguably, been won by the less-experienced candidate. People seem to react more to how long they've been aware of the person, rather than to how long the person has actually been in elective office.

What, a completely nuts wingnut website got a story on Gore wrong? Fake? This can't be. Next thing you know they'll tell me the Clintons weren't running drugs thru Arkansas and whacking dozens of people along the way.

What on earth are you talking about with getting ballots tossed. The only ones I know that the republicans wanted to get tossed were the ones with hanging chads or just marks where the people voting did not finish perforating the ballot. How can you be sure whether the voters wanted to finish the voting at all.

among other technical exclusions, ballots where voters checked off gore and wrote his name in got tossed

it was technically correct to toss them, but then, it was technically correct to toss overdue servicemen votes also

Thompson said on Sean Hannity's show yesterday that he will formally announce in one to two months time. He also said that he has rejected playing by everyone elses rules in the new extended Presidential campaign season.

Quite frankly I agree with him on that. The perpetual campaigning that the two parties have cooked up is ridiculous.

McCain is cooked as far as the primary goes. Anti free speech and pro amnesty. He is done.

Mitt looks more and more like an articulate, slicker GW.

Giuliani at least seems to show some integrity and no one doubts his commitment to winning the WOT.

Thompson shows more interest in the will of the people and upholding the law than the current crop of GOP front runners.

Gore? He didn't even win his own home state, which cost him the election. He has since re-invented himself as part kook screacher for the MoveOn.org types and High Priest of the Church of Globalony Warming. He will be an easier target this time around.

I like the comment that it was "technically" correct to try and toss military ballots. Try looking at the big picture: the democrats tried to toss military ballots and count those of convicted felons. Even if that is all you know about the election, it says enough.

"Jeff, I assume you're citing Gore's comments about the treatment of Arabs in the US after 9/11 as an example of the "outrageous things" that Jake was referring to at the beginning of this thread.

The trouble with your example, though, is that what Gore said is absolutely true."

I would disagree. There were not "terrible abuses" There was not an "indiscriminate round up" and they were not held in "unforgivable" conditions. But far more important is that this speech was held in Saudi Arabia, in front of people who consider themselves perpetual victims of the big bad USA and just had it confirmed by the former VP of The United States. If Gore actually believed in this stuff, why didn't he give the same speech in front of congress? You telling me with level of Bush hatred in the house, he couldn't have had setting members in the house convene hearings? But he didn't. As far as I know, he never mentioned any of this on this side of the ocean. Only in a speech in the same country that most of the hijackers came from. If the situation was reversed and a Republican did this, I would be outraged.

Will Al Gore's new Chinese American son in law help or hurt his chances?

Romney should be far in the lead by now. McCain has always been a sad case and Giuliani is a 3 time married, pro-gay, anti-gun, pro illegal immigration/invasion candidate who can't stop pimping 9-11 to his advantage.

The images of him in drag on SNL are death.

Romney for prez and make Thompson the really scary looking Sec of State. That way we wont need to have war. Just send Fred overseas to scare people into submission.